A man who says he was molested by a cross-dressing staff member of a Cincinnati hospital is suing. He claims the University of Cincinnati Hospital’s decision to hire someone with an “identity crisis” is gross negligence on their part, although the now-convicted employee, Chad Thrasher, had no prior history of molesting patients.
The hospital disagrees on the grounds that they could not have discriminated against Thrasher for his choice to present himself as a woman due to a landmark 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that says employers may be held liable for discriminating against transsexuals based on their gender nonconformity. Smith v. City of Salem, 378 F.3d 566 (2004).
The victim, Dereco Evans, was admitted to the hospital as a gunshot victim on Feb. 11, 2009, and his identity and location were kept secret because the gunman who shot him was still at large. On Feb. 19, the suit says, he lay helpless in bed as Thrasher, fondled him, grabbed his face, “applied lip gloss and/or a cosmetic substance” to his lips, and “proceeded to kiss Plaintiff in a very intimate manner.”
Evans’ lawsuit claims that Thrasher being transgender made him a foreseeable danger to patients and the hospital knew or should have known that Thrasher was “incompetent, inappropriate, or defective. “Thrasher’s employment while masquerading as a member of the female gender in a hospital environment involved an unreasonable risk of harm to others,” Evans told reporters.
Thrasher, a phlebotomist who drew blood from patients, was convicted in June 2009 of gross sexual imposition and is serving an 18-month prison term. During his trial, he showed up for court dressed in a woman’s wig, necklace and heels.
Even though the offender is now imprisoned, does the victim still have the right to sue the hospital for negligence on the “forseeable danger” theory? –gerald radford
